Understanding the multidimensionality of a concern for falling in people with unilateral transtibial amputation: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with lower limb loss often experience psychological concerns related to falling. A concern for falling (CFF) includes four subdomains: fear of falling, self-efficacy, consequences of falling, and perceptions of falls. Limited research exists on how these subdomains are influenced by clinical factors and falls history. This cross-sectional online survey evaluated: (1) associations among CFF outcome measures; (2) relationships between falls history and outcome measures; and (3) clinical and demographic factors related with outcome measures. Inclusion criteria: ≥18 years old, unilateral transtibial amputation and ambulating with a prosthesis. Eight measures assessed CFF: visual analog scale fear of falling, Modified Survey of Activities and Fear of Falling in the Elderly (mSAFFE), Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC), Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I), Prosthetic Limb Users Survey - Mobility (PLUS-M), Locomotor Capabilities Index, Consequences of Falling Scale, and Perceived Ability to Manage Falls. Pearson bivariate correlation analysis assessed associations among outcome measures. T tests evaluated the association of falls status on outcome scores. Multiple linear regression modelled the clinical and demographic factors related to each measure. Sixty-eight adults (mean 61.8 ± 12.0) participated. Moderate statistically significant ( P < 0.001) correlations were found across most outcome measures, with the strongest between PLUS-M and mSAFFE ( r = -0.841), and ABC and FES-I ( r = -0.821). Faller status was not associated with any measure ( P > 0.05). Quality of life was associated with fear of falling, activity avoidance, self-efficacy, and certainty to managing falls ( R2 ranged from 0.27 to 0.47). CFF should be evaluated independently of falls history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".